February 10, 2003                                                                                            Volume IX

                                                                                                                                 Issue 05

As the interim chair of the FRAFS Interim Executive Committee, and as the director of a central interior first nations fisheries program, I have made a commitment both to myself, and to the positions, which I hold respectfully, to communicate with those who read the watershed talk and participate in the functions of the FRAFS. The purpose of this article is to bring interested people up to date on the current status of the watershed process.

I think it is worth remembering what prompted the review of the FRAFS and indeed the watershed agreement between Fraser First Nations and DFO, according to the independent facilitator, Dr. Bob Brown:

To begin I think it is worth recapping the 13 recommendations by Dr. Bob Brown regarding the review of the FRAFS as of 2001/2002.

1. Establish a process to negotiate a watershed agreement

2. Establish a process to negotiate a consultation protocol

3. Make an effort to increase participation at the Tier 1 level

4. Establish an executive committee to oversee FRAFS

5. Appoint an Executive Director to oversee the operations of the FRAFS

6. Review the mandate of the FRAFS

7. Review budget for operation of the FRAFS

8. Increase funding to FRAFS for technical support

9. First Nations and DFO establish process engaging the technical group

10. 10 Communications secretary job be amended to include education function

11. Tier 1 agree on a structure to work on action items from meetings

12. Establish an editorial board

13. Establish a joint Aboriginal/DFO process to act upon the 13 recommendations

We are truly at a critical stage with respect to a watershed agreement, to me the question is not whether or not we should kill this process, but how can we create something more relevant, out of the ashes of the old agreement, after 10 years of AFS?

Remember the function of the secretariat is three fold: coordinating body, communications secretary, and technical forum. In 2001 it was agreed that we should bring on Dr. Bob Brown to do an independent review of the FRAFS, from his report the Interim Executive Committee (IEC) was formed, which was one of his recommendations. The IEC is composed of DFO and First Nations representatives who primary tasks are to follow up on the Dr. Brown recommendations, and to oversee the operations of the secretariat. The IEC joint sub-committee is comprised of First Nations reps, Fred Fortier, Marcel Shepert, Chief Robert Hope, Barney Stirling, and Neil Todd; the DFO reps, Paul Ryall, and Brigid Payne. The IEC has tackled, through a series of meetings during the summer of 2002, recommendations 1, 2, 4, 9 and 13 and are gearing up to begin work on some of the other recommendations as well.

The IEC is considering all options with respect to a new watershed agreement; the development of a mutually acceptable consultation protocol A Framework for consultations, which has been presented to the FWAFF, in Musqeum, the IEC hopes to distribute this document to as many First Nations as possible for input. The IEC will also develop a Conservation and Management Plan for 2003; develop a Terms of Reference for the Stock Management Committee, indeed the IEC has made substantial progress toward resolution of several contentious issues affecting relationships between DFO and Fraser First Nations. The IEC will continue to work closely with the Forum (tier 2) as we provide recommendations and continue the process toward implementation of these recommendations.

I would like to engage as many First Nations as possible; the process is designed to be open and transparent. Please feel free to contact any of the IEC members regarding any of the issues presented, or any other issues of concern.

For those of you who haven’t heard of the Broughton Peninsula Pink Salmon crash and the controversy over alleged sea lice infestations to rearing juvenile pink salmon from salmon farms in the area as a possible cause, listen up!

Broughton Peninsula pink salmon escapements dropped from over 5 million adult pinks in the brood year to a few thousand the following cycle. A suspected culprit is sea lice, a parasitic copepod that attaches itself to marine fish, although pro-aquaculture factions suggest the crash is due to "over escapement". Alexandra Morton, a local Registered Professional Biologist and member of CAAR (Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform) has reported on this issue and raised a number of concerns regarding the potential destruction of wild pink salmon destined for Broughton Peninsula. She points to the transfer of sea lice from farmed Atlantic salmon to wild juvenile pink as they rear and migrate along the shores of Broughton Peninsula where numerous fish farms are located.

Apparently, because of the density of Atlantic salmon in net pens of fish farms, sea lice tend to abound and reproduce in greater numbers than they would in the wild. According to Ms. Morton, not only are Atlantic salmon reared in greater densities within sea-pens in Broughton Peninsula than would be found in Norway, the husbandry of Atlantic Salmon in the Broughton Peninsula farms falls short of international protocols. Specifically, the number of sea lice per farmed salmon and the amount of time between surveys of reared salmon for sea lice set forth by the owners of the Broughton Peninsula farms before they would apply treatment for this parasite is laxer than what is allowed by international protocols governing aquaculture. Ms. Morten states:

Representatives from the seas farms contest Ms. Morton’s statements, indicating that not only are her statements regarding international protocols and Norwegian standards for farming Atlantic salmon false, but that their protocol meets or exceeds standards.

People opposed to the way Broughton Peninsula sea farms are run (including local area First Nations) have called for the farms to remain fallow (that is, empty) for the period of time when juvenile pink salmon are migrating past, at least until studies are completed. Requiring farms be held temporarily fallow as a safeguard to protect wild pink salmon stocks in Broughton Peninsula could be considered risk averse management, considering the worst case scenario is extinction of these stocks. The owner of the sea farms have agreed to do this only for some of the farms, citing lengthy delays to obtain replacement sites from DFO, lack of resources in place to deal with mass destruction of fish, and employee lay-offs and economic impacts, as reason’s against fallowing all farms, rather than just the few they deem necessary to address the problem. Furthermore, sea farm owners feel they will be able to control any potential sea-lice problem following their suggested treatment program.

I do not profess to know much about the mechanisms behind the economics of sea farms, the reproductive habits of sea lice, nor the mechanisms for transfer of this parasite to wild salmon from farmed salmon, or even the effects of sea lice upon mortality of rearing salmon. However, from what I have heard on this matter, DFO and the Province are woefully unprepared as they have no action plan to deal with this issue and have provided little leadership other than to suggest more dialogue and more study. Meanwhile the farms continue with "business as usual". If this theme sounds familiar to you, it should.

There is a move by the government of BC to lift the moratorium on the expansion of fish farms in BC, but there is also a suggestion the aquaculture industry be self-regulated. While we await finalization of DFO’s Wild Salmon Policy (WSP), which in its original form did not even address aquaculture and its interactions with wild salmon (and is less likely to do so in its final form), we see an industry in BC that seems to be operating in a regulatory vacuum with little in the way of legislated guidelines, let alone voluntarily agreed to codes of practice, or direction from federal or provincial regulatory bodies.

My concerns with the Broughton Peninsula example relates to how industry seems to be influencing the "limp noodle" approach of our provincial and federal governments on this issue. I am also concerned about the future of aquaculture as a viable industry in B.C., and worse yet, this industry’s potential impact upon wild stocks of salmon particularly when considering the concept of risk averse management to protect wild salmon stocks.

Is it fair to ask how long before what is considered a local problem in Broughton Peninsula spreads to other wild salmon stocks if or when the aquaculture industry expands? Expansion of the problem to other wild salmon stocks could severely impact the future of aquaculture in B.C., particularly in how it is viewed by the public. Moreover, this issue strikes at the heart of DFO’s role as a regulatory body and its dedication to the principle of risk averse management to protect wild salmon, whether it’s in regards to issues such as fish farming in Broughton Peninsula, or protecting wild salmon and endangered salmon stocks in mixed stock fisheries.

Is it coincidental that DFO is holding Fraser River planning sessions with stakeholders regarding "long term sockeye escapement goals" that really only appears as a means to guarantee a long term harvest plan for the commercial fishing fleet prior to finalization of the WSP or integration of such long term harvest plans with the Species at Risk Act?

Perhaps Fraser River First Nations should take a closer look at, or better yet strongly question, how DFO plans to proceed with the Broughton Peninsula situation. This should be considered a "litmus test" of DFO’s commitment to protecting wild salmon. How the situation is dealt with will give strong signals as to how seriously our concerns over the management of Fraser River salmon, and for that matter all of BC’s wild salmon populations, will be addressed.

Feb. 17, 2003 – Interim Executive Committee Meeting in Vancouver, BC from 10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Feb. 18, 19 & 20, 2003 – BCAFC Annual General Assembly in North Vancouver. For more information contact Jen at (604) 913-9061.

Feb. 18, 2003 – Communications Meeting in North Vancouver. For more information contact Elaine Kinequon at (604) 913-9061.

Feb. 21, 2003 – Tier One Meeting in Tsawwassen, more information to follow later.

Feb. 24, 2003 - Ad Hoc Fraser River Technical Workshop in Prince George, BC at the Native Friendship Centre from 10:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Feb. 26, 2003 – Ad Hoc Fraser River Technical Workshop in Kamloops, BC at the Secwepemc Fisheries Commission office from 10:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Feb 28, 2003 – Ad Hock Fraser River Technical Workshop in Chilliwack, BC at the Best Western Rainbow Country Inn from 10:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

[Home] [Calendar] [News] [Links] [Fraser Map] [Contact Us] [Stock Info] [Documents] [Visions 2001] [Photos]